Invitation
In the last two weeks Iowa and Vermont have recognized the right of gay men and women to marry, joining Massachusetts and Connecticut. Are we finally beginning to see a thaw in the Cold War against gays? I’ve never understood the vehemence of the antagonism toward gays and lesbians in our society, when so many other civil rights barriers have fallen. Marriage is a legal contract between two people, and denying a class of people the right to engage in that contract results in the denial of basic rights accorded to other married people. The right to inherit property, to care for minor children, to hospital visitation, rights taken for granted by the vast majority of us, are denied gays. One can only hope that now that the wall has come down in four states, others will swiftly follow.
See more cartoons by Ed Stein.
Got news for you Stein;
There is no “vehemence of the antagonism” and all this hate you dredge up to gain sympathy for homosexuals. It just isn’t there, as much as you guys want it to be. WE JUST DISAGREE. We disagree with them trying to screw up marriage vows. Your line is ‘old, not creative, not stimulative of any new thought, just same lame mantra.
And by the way. So as to not disappoint you. – My flying blue devil can beat up your little pink fairy any day – except when your commie lib judges intervene.
Ruining marriage vows? Whose? Yours? Oh, I get it, ‘my marriage fell apart. But it’s not my fault I swear, it’s the gays!’
This is why ‘just disagreeing’ is not an argument, because argument means you have a reason behind it. You’re using bs to justify prejudice.
To illustrate your point, put yourself in Hitler’s shoes: ‘our economy was destroyed in the war. Not our fault, I swear, it’s the Jews!’ Yes, I know you’re not advocating killing all gays (or maybe you just don’t have the means), but your logic is analogous and just as stupid.
Apply this to any minority. You, my friend, are a bigot.
Et tu, John Locke?
Gene – you have every right to disagree, but if you truly believe there is no “vehemence of the antagonism”, you’ve been living under a rock. Locke is right – based on your comment above, you are a bigot.
Gene’s narrow world view is usually summed up as “commie lib” something or other. I wonder what a sad life has led him to be so bitter. But, Gene, thanks for supporting this site.
“Marriage is a legal contract between two people”
Where does it say just 2? Why only 2? The point being if you are going to rewrite laws from the Bench somebody better figure out how big of a hole is left behind and who is going to fill it.
Do you remember when Washington State opened up the Holiday displays to an Athiest group? There were so many people in line to push the boundries of the Gov’s ruling that she was swamped under. People will push this to extremes as well. Some with good intent others just for the press.
Maintou: Those slippery slope arguments have constantly been used against allowing other minorities to marry whites in the past (blacks, asians, etc.), and guess what, no one’s marrying trees or 4 people today, even though those minorities now have their full rights.
So hey, you’re also a bigot! Congrats!
Everyone’s a bigot.
Got it.
How about that new President we have? He doesn’t support gay marriage.
Gene, your false point underscores your inability to comprehend logic. “I’m a bigot and so is someone else who agrees with me, therefore everyone must be.” Nope, not a valid conclusion.
Obama’s a politician. Nuff said.
Locke,
Actually my point was sarcasm toward you and Marymore, calling people who disagree with you bigots. That was my point. I have the ability to comprehend logic. As a certain radio talk guy says, “I have told you a hundred million times, don’t exaggerate.” Why can’t your side just accept, WE DISAGREE, and not throw incendiary comments around.
And evidently the WE includes our President. That says your side has not the numbers or therefore the politics of this issue. How is that for logic? Just because our new President disagrees with you on this position, doesn’t mean he hates homosexuals.
Gene – for the record, I do not refer to anyone who disagrees with me as a bigot. There are people with whom I vehemently disagree about:
-Immigration
-Mass Transit
-Taxes
-Iraq
-About a thousand other things.
I don’t call any of these people bigots for their views. However, when you single out a group of people and say they are lesser than you and should have fewer rights, whether because of gender, skin color, sexual orientation, disability, or any other accident of birth over which they have no control, then yes, you are a bigot.
Actually, I think you have a valid point about marriage, but not in the way you might think. I don’t think any form of marriage belongs in the civil code. Marriage is a religious institution, and as such should remain in the realm of religion, not law. Any two (or yes, more), consenting adults should be allowed to form a domestic partnership, binding in law, and only dissoluble by divorce. Marriage rules should be set by the religion of one’s choice, not legally recognized, and not delimited by law.
Food for thought.
My dearest Marymor,
In your post at 10:16 am, adressed to me, you said, . “Locke is right – based on your comment above, you are a bigot.”
And where did I “. .single out a group of people and say they are lesser. . “?? . . . . Those are all your words.
Regarding your thoughts on marriage, . . whew! . . There is enough there for a whole psychological conference. I stole that line from a tv show that partly sums up your philosophy. It was called Fawlty Towers. The first word of the title!
Gene – thank you for your response – dialog is a good thing. Where did you single out a people? “Little pink fairy” – hello?? Also, “them” trying to “screw up marriage vows”. How can “they” screw up anything of yours? Any time “they” or “them” starts being the reason for anything is a red flag for bigotry, especially if “they” did not choose the way they are, and are otherwise a typical cross-section of the population – i.e. no more violent, aggressive or law-breaking than any other cross-section. I do not dispute your right to disagree with their (or anyone else’s) lifestyle. When it crosses over into bigotry is when you try to legally impose your views onto another group, and limit their freedom.
I would be interested to know why you think psychology is relevant to my political opinion of marriage. I am aware of Fawlty Towers, and feel it was frequently a bitingly concise socio-political satire.
Mary, Mary, Mary,
You are really fishing here. I do not think a little pink fairy is lesser. Gene Amole used to have one sitting on his shoulder for inspiration! The last 2 lines of my first post were meant to show a majority of opinion, the main line thinking is against fooling with the traditions of marriage. We consistently vote in referendums to uphold the laws of marriage. Then liberal judges overturn the will of the people. This is the only way the fringe can win. My comment as to ‘commie lib’ judges, was purely to antagonize Ed Stein. That what he expects me to say! I do not think of people as groups. That is another lib talking point.
The difference is, I think you really are one, and I’m giving examples to back up my point instead of refusing to think about my position and simply saying ‘WE DISAGREE’ to hide my guilt, or rage, or whatever it is.
Re-read your last post. You really think Stein doesn’t have thick enough skin to ignore your comments? And you accuse me of being incendiary! Kettle, Pot. Pot, Kettle.
I still stand by my first post.
I re-read my last post and stand by it, with the possible exception of the pink fairy. The one of Gene Amole’s inspiration was not necessarily of any color. It was just a fairy, as I recall.
Gene, Gene, Gene,
How condescending you are. Fortunately, nothing you could possibly say would offend me, and I love a spirited dialog.
It doesn’t matter how many people have pink fairies on their desk, or anywhere else. When used in reference to homosexuals, it is a derogatory and bigoted term. It is analogous to “Tinkerbell” – beloved by children all over the world. But when used in reference to women, it is derogatory and sexist, which is just another form of bigotry.
You keep referring to the “Majority”, as if that makes it right. As has been frequently pointed out, when the man who is now our president was born, it was illegal in 25 states for his parents to marry. In many of the states where it was legal, it was because of those same liberal judges you so decry. At that time, the majority opinion was that interracial marriage was, as you put it, “fooling with the traditions of marriage”.
They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.
Mary, et al,
When Ed Stein puts me a box and pokes me with a stick and I push the stick back, I am a bigot for not going along with him.
So be it.
Ps, If I laugh at a guy wearing a pink tutu in a public parade, am I a bigot?
Bravo Ed! We are not a free country until our gay people are given the same rights as the rest of us. All men (women) are created equal. I’ll never understand why people are so intimidated by the equality issue. To me it’s just a natural part of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. Teddy Kennedy and Hillary Clinton are the only politicians that have the guts to speak up and say hey, this is wrong. Gay people are not any different than others. They are just people. Why is that so intimidating to some folks? Why interfere with someone’s chance for happiness? I love all my gay and straight neighbors.
Yes, I agree with Judy. But not the part about Clinton and Kennedy. Forget about the policians anyway. I enjoy Steins work. But for the sake of argument, the only thing I would change is the word gay. Why not just say men and women. Labels are not needed. Why do we need to describe and identify people by what type of sex they have? What color they are? It’s as silly as describing someone as the plumber, the barman. We are all just people. Brains, guts blood.
Where are the latest Stein cartoons? He has like 3 more up on his website, but they aren’t being posted here. What’s the deal?
Stein jumped the shark.
. . . . . because this deal is trying to appeal to people for subscriptions, not drive them away.
Wow, gene just doesn’t get it, which doesn’t surprise me after reading other posts of his. All societies problems are the liberals fault for Gene. Boy your one smart cookie there gene.
Marriage is a sacrament. That means it is a contract between two people and their God. Why so many religious people think that their government has any say in that is beyond me. Let the government define marriage any way it wants. Does that affect my wife and my relationship with God in any way? No.
I’ll tell you what offends God and damages marriage – the ease of divorce and extramarital sex in our society. Funny how much easier it is to pass a gay bashing measure in terms of defending marriage than it is to pass a divorce-ban measure under the same argument.
We are all effected by efforts to allow the government to define marriage, not just homosexuals. The principle is the same whether the government bans my marriage to another man, or a black woman or a person of a higher or lower social class. Why would we allow the government to intervene in one area, but reject it in others?
Many religious groups in America believe that their God is offended by homosexuality. I can understand that. Many religious groups in the US see homosexuality as a minor sin on par with eating pork or not going to church on Sundays. Indeed, some see love in any form as a glorification of God and something not to be questioned by mankind. Which group is right? The great thing about the First Amendment is that we are all free to figure it out for ourselves, without a government to intervene and tell us one of these choices is verboten. Gay or straight, I don’t understand how anyone could accept a law that demands acceptance of one of these to the exclusion of any other.
Listen, if we as a society allow gay marriage legally, that will enable all Americans to decide for them self what is God’s message to them and what is right. Passing a law to allow it does not mean it is legitimate in the eyes of God. Tell me seriously, if you are offended by gay marriage, why does a law passed by a non-ordained government offend or threaten you?
Brian – well, and eloquently, put.
I would have to say that Brian hit the nail on the head and while doing so, he explained it very well where the line of church and state is. Where by what the government says, you don’t have always agree with it but to believe that it damages your religion or religious beliefs is absurd. You can have an intimate relationship with God or not, but that shouldn’t define the laws.
I am a gay man, and have had a committed relationship with my partner for over 8 years now. We both contribute to our society, don’t push our relationship or anything about it on others, and participate in what we should for a successful government. We, along with many others, believe that we should receive the same benefits of a married couple. It is very frustrating dealing with taxes, insurance, wills, other accounts, medical decisions, and several other things that you may take for granted as a married couple.
I don’t care what the legal name of this partnership between two people (gay, straight, transgender, etc) is called. It could be a partnership, civil union, domestic partnership, marriage, or anything else, just a legal and binding contract that would grant the same rights to the people entering into that contract. You can then have it blessed or have it take place with a religious community and have it become sacred.
Just frustrated and disappointed that I get put into one of those “different” groups of society without the same rights.
As per the first post to this story, my post 9 April, and at the risk of being called a bigot again and again, I still stand by that post and DECLINE Ed Stein’s INVITATION to this latest attempt to rile the waters. This is the latest push by homosexual rights advocates, purposely, during a time of crisis (economic) coinciding with Obama’s soft socialism takeover of the American way of life. It fits the crisis pattern. Get what you can while the getting is good.
I do not expect to change any of the well made up minds commenting above. I am merely here to hopefully, defend the position of regular people, representing a majority of the American people who do not want to change the marriage vows. Really nothing more. But really very important. Anyone wanting to read good arguments on this issue, I would suggest reading 1) Dr. James Dobson’s 10 point argument against; however one has to have a religious appreciation to understand, or 2) an interview on the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life by Rick Santorum, who talks from cultural as well as religious understandings. That interview can be found at; http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=180
As per the first post to this story, my post 9 April, and at the risk of being called a bigot again and again, I still stand by that post and DECLINE Ed Stein’s INVITATION to this latest attempt to rile the waters. This is the latest push by homosexual rights advocates, purposely, during a time of crisis (economic) coinciding with Obama’s soft socialism takeover of the American way of life. It fits the crisis pattern. Get what you can while the getting is good.
part 2. .
I do not expect to change any of the well made up minds commenting above. I am merely here to hopefully, defend the position of regular people, representing a majority of the American people who do not want to change the marriage vows. Really nothing more. But really very important. Anyone wanting to read good arguments on this issue, I would suggest reading 1) Dr. James Dobson’s 10 point argument against; however one has to have a religious appreciation to understand, or 2) an interview on the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life by Rick Santorum, who talks from cultural as well as religious understandings. That interview can be found at; http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=180
continued from above,
I do not expect to change any of the well made up minds commenting above. I am merely here to hopefully, defend the position of regular people, representing a majority of the American people who do not want to change the marriage vows. Really nothing more. But really very important. Anyone wanting to read good arguments on this issue, I would suggest reading 1) Dr. James Dobson’s 10 point argument against; however one has to have a religious appreciation to understand, or 2) an interview on the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life by Rick Santorum, who talks from cultural as well as religious understandings.
For some reason, I am not able to post the link to the Pew Forum.
Gene – you recommended reading James Dobson. Many years ago, Robin Williams said:
“I put the Enquirer in my canary’s cage, but he refused to s*** on it. He said ‘Why be redundant?’”
That is my opinion of anything Dobson has to say.
Mary,
I guess you are not Mary Morris. And I doubt you are the centrist you claim to be. However, I offered up the Rick Santorum piece on the very liberal Pew outfit for people like you, if you care to read it. Oh, I should look to Robin Williams on matters of the culture?? Very funny. I’m still smarting from being called a bigot. Just like the Miss America, runner up I guess. That from the tolerant left and tolerant centrists!
Aaron C – kudos to you for standing up for your rights. If you followed this entire thread, you will have seen that I agree with you completely – NO marriage belongs in civil law. Freedom of religion is a basic right in this country, and marriage should be between the people involved and their god or gods. I am not trying to amend Gene’s (or anybody else’s) marriage vows. I merely state that they are his, not mine, or yours.
By imposing the Christian definition of marriage in Federal law, Congress is, in effect, “making a law respecting an establishment of religion”, which is expressly forbidden in the First amendment. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1
Wonder what Robin William’ parrot though about the National Enquirer piece on John Edwards’ love child? Ever vote for good ole boy John Edwards?
Gene – yes I am Mary Morris, and no, I don’t think you should look to Robin Williams for matters of culture, as you very well know, smart-aleck comeback or not. I merely quoted him because he said it better than I ever could. I am not judging Dobson based on the opinion of others – I have read many of his statements. He, and he alone, formed my opinion of him. If you are a bigot, he is the bigot’s messiah.
You call me liberal all you like, but the mud won’t stick – liberals get just as mad at me. Being yelled at by both extremes (and you are about as extreme as it gets) is a pretty good definition of being in the middle.
and, no, I most definitely never voted for John Edwards. I did vote for John Kerry, but I had to hold my nose while I did it – talk about having to choose the lesser evil!!
The Mary Morris I was referring to was married to a Catholic scholar. A very conservative Catholic scholar. His name began with F. Is that you?
If you voted for John Kerry, you also most certainly voted for John Edwards. He was the v.p. candidate.
Nope, not that Mary Morris. Like I said, there’s lots of people named Mary Morris. Sorry for the confusion.
And you’re right – I forgot about Edwards being the vp candidate. See, I can admit it when I’m wrong!
I probably put it out of my mind because I was so horrified by the entire presidential slate that year. I despise John Edwards, and I think Kerry is incompetent. I also despise George Bush, and by that time he had proven himself to be both incompetent AND dangerous.
Like I said, lesser of evils.
Mary – thanks for your compliments and yes I too have been following this thread, understanding and also agreeing with you. I takes a strong person to be able to stand behind the rights of all, not just the rights of a few.
So a question for Gene then, according to your comment:
“This is the latest push by homosexual rights advocates, purposely, during a time of crisis (economic) coinciding with Obama’s soft socialism takeover of the American way of life. It fits the crisis pattern. Get what you can while the getting is good.” and “I am merely here to hopefully, defend the position of regular people, representing a majority of the American people who do not want to change the marriage vows.”
So I guess according to you I’m one of those crazy homosexual rights advocate trying to help with the takeover of the country while we’re in difficult times? And since we are in difficult times, I’m going to work on taking advantage of it then? And I guess I’m also not a “normal” person, one of the strange outcasts of society? I might as go well live on an island where I won’t be a burden to you or others then!
I don’t see why I can’t have the same rights as a married couple, and I’d like you to tell me why I can’t have those rights. Again I am in a committed, monogamous relationship and contribute my dues to society, but can’t receive all the benefits. And yes, before the difficult economic times, I wanted these rights, not just now where “I’m taking advantage of the situation.”
You obviously didn’t read my original post asking some of these questions or addressing anything, and I agree with many before, you truly are a bigot.
Bigot – a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance
Didn’t say you were crazy.
Didn’t say you were not “normal.”
I do not hate anybody.
I have told you a hundred million times, don’t exaggerate.
Calm down.
Why is it, not all homosexuals desire to be married? Or not all are liberal in politics? Please don’t answer. Just think about it.
Why is it, not all heterosexuals desire to be married? Or not all are liberal in politics? Please don’t answer. Just think about it.
That is correct, Marymor.
My point was, not all homosexuals want to change marriage vows or vote to Democrats.
I just want to have the same rights as a married heterosexual couple, how hard is that for you to understand. I have a partner, we have been together for over 8 years, and we have committed ourselves to each other. I would like to have that recognized by the government so I can have the same rights, deals, discounts, tax breaks, etc…..
Why don’t you think about that…
I just want to be taller.
Actually, Gene, you have the right to be taller, and it is medically possible if you can afford it. That’s the whole point – you have the right, and Aaron doesn’t. Your church (any church) has the right to refuse to bless a same-sex marriage. The Boy Scouts have the right to be bigots against gays, and sexist as well. And don’t tell me they are not sexist, or give me blather about the Girl Scouts. Scouting was the very first in an interminably long line of doors that was slammed in my face because of my gender… Sorry, end of rant.
Anyway, these are private institutions, with religious backgrounds. You, as a private individual, have the right to be a bigot. I may not like that, but it is true, and just.
What is neither just nor constitutional is for the Government, whether Federal, State, or Municipal, to single out any peaceable, non-violent group who does no harm to society and deny them their basic civil rights – those same rights you so take for granted.
This is why I keep saying that marriage does not belong in civil law. I strongly believe in the right of any religion to define their concept of right and wrong, and to require their adherents to abide by that, or at least try to. This is freedom of religion, and is just as basic to our civil rights as freedom of speech, or the press, or the right to bear arms. And yes, I’ve owned guns my entire adult life, and believe as strongly in the Second Amendment as I do the First, the Fourth, or any other.
The proviso being that no religion has the right to impose their rules on anyone else. Women in the Middle East are treated in a similar fashion as gays here, or worse. Gays are just executed. Do you really want to stand up for the right of an extreme religious view to be imposed on society?
Gee,
I thought in the middle east one could marry his goat?
Actually, Marymor, I am quite tall. And handsome.
At a restaruant last Thursday I sat next to a table of two homosexual males. They both spoke of the other’s boyfriend so they were not a couple. One of the males was the worst homophobe I have ever heard. He spoke very derisively of other gays, gay bars, their mutual gay friends, etc. He always used the phrase when jusitfying his hatred of other gays “It is just not me to like them, be around them, want to talk to them, etc.”
I think it would be great if gays first dealt with anti-gay sentiment in gays themselves